House gives tentative approval to stormwater bill

On Wednesday of this week the House Environment Committee approved a committee substitute for SB 1566 – Stormwater Management 2006 .  The bill was amended, at our request, to clarify that the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources may not require municipalities to implement illicit discharge detection and elimination programs in their extraterritorial jurisdictions.  The House passed the bill on second reading on Thursday, and third reading is scheduled for Monday, July 24. 

SB 1566 resolves differences between legislation adopted in 2004 and the rules adopted by the Environmental Management Commission in 2005.  One major difference between the two is the coverage area.  The 2004 legislation focused on the 123 federally-designated Phase II municipalities and the urbanizing spheres of unincorporated area around them, while the EMC's rules sought to require full-county coverage in 33 counties.  SB 1566 strikes a compromise by covering 26 counties (and, by virtue of their location in those counties, approximately 100 municipalities not previously designated) under Phase II stormwater management.  All qualifying development in the 26 counties would be required to manage stormwater.

Counties brought under the Phase II rules by this bill include:  Alamance, Brunswick, Cabarrus, Catawba, Chatham, Cumberland, Davie, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, Harnett, Henderson, Hoke, Mecklenburg, Nash, New Hanover, Onslow, Orange, Pitt, Randolph, Union, Wake and Wayne.

Because of the League's concerns about adding non-Phase II designated municipalities to the legislation, the bill now specifies that the towns added only because they are located in one of the 26 counties will not be required to implement the program themselves.  DENR will be responsible for the stormwater program in these municipalities, while municipalities previously designated under Phase II regulations will continue to carry out their own stormwater management programs.

Other provisions of the bill establish a lower threshold for triggering stormwater control requirements in areas near shellfishing waters and require development in coastal areas to have controls capable of managing greater amounts of rainfall.  The bill sets forth the circumstances under which development activities will have a vested right to continue without complying with the post-construction stormwater management practices.  It includes enabling authority for cities and counties to adopt and enforce various aspects of stormwater control ordinances.

Amended eminent domain bill passes

On Wednesday of this week the Senate Judiciary I Committee took up HB 1965 – Eminent Domain Restrictions .  With no discussion, the committee amended the bill to prohibit the use of eminent domain power under the urban redevelopment law to acquire non-blighted property.  (Under current law, at least two-thirds of the area must be blighted and the power of eminent domain can be used to acquire any property within the area.)  The League had offered several alternative amendments concerning the use of eminent domain authority in redevelopment areas but the committee did not discuss those alternatives.

On Thursday the Senate unanimously passed HB 1965 as amended.  The House unanimously concurred later in the day and the bill now goes to the Governor for signature.

The other provisions of the bill clarify, through statutory changes, that eminent domain can only be used for the purposes that are listed in G. S. 40A-3.  Any local act granting eminent domain authority for a use or purpose other than those listed in the statute is not effective for that use or purpose.  The bill clarifies that the eminent domain authority granted in G.S. 40A-3(b1) to certain coastal communities for beach erosion control is preserved.

Senate concurs on solid waste

The Senate has concurred on the compromise version of SB 951 – Public-Private Solid Waste Collection, ending a long effort that began in the 2005 session. 

SB 951 establishes a process that cities and counties must use if they wish to “displace” a private solid waste collection company.  This displacement has nothing to do with the process of renewing a contract or franchise or awarding a new contract when an existing one is due to expire.  Local governments are free to change providers when contracts expire without having to meet these requirements.

However, if you wish to displace a company during a contract or franchise, you must give notice of the first meeting where the governing board will discuss the issue.  If you decide to displace the company, you must either allow a 15-month grace period (from the publication date of notice of the first meeting) before a new provider can take over or pay the company its gross revenues for six months for the service area affected (calculated from the publication date of notice of first meeting).

The bill applies to actions taken on or after January 1, 2007.  It now goes to the Governor for signature. 

Senate approves Bill Lee revisions

The Senate has passed HB 2170 – Bill Lee Changes and the bill now returns to the House for concurrence.  The legislation would revise and in some respects enhance the state economic development tax credits program.  It changes the existing tier structure from five tiers to three, with the county's designation based on unemployment, median household income, percentage in population growth and per capita adjusted assessed property value.  Enhanced credits are available in economically distressed counties, as well as in agrarian zones and urban progress zones.  The bill replaces development zones with “urban progress zones” that are more narrowly focused on urban poverty areas.  They must be entirely within the corporate limits of a municipality with a population of at least 10,000 and can comprise no more than 15 percent of the area of the municipality.  The bill expands the list of businesses eligible for tax incentives and modifies the wage standard.

Ethics debate continues

The Senate approved its version of a government ethics and lobbying reform bill on Wednesday, but the House unanimously rejected the changes a few hours later, setting the stage for negotiation in conference.  Both the House and Senate versions of HB 1843 – State Government Ethics Act require more comprehensive economic disclosure statements, restrict gifts from lobbyists to legislators, more clearly define conflicts of interest and strengthen penalties for violations.  There are several key differences, including how much power to vest in a central state ethics board, whether to ban lobbyists from fundraising, and how narrowly to define gifts.

Edging toward adjournment

Legislators will be back next week, perhaps for the last week of this 2006 session.  Resolution of differences between House and Senate on the ethics and lobbying legislation is the last major hurdle, but there are always a number of end-of-the-session loose ends to tie up.